Iran Politics
Iran 1nc
Iran nuclear deal has entered the final stage – international consensus that an
agreement will be reached
Reuters 7/3/2015 “Iran nuclear talks in endgame, negotiators push on sticking points”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/03/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150703
A year and half of nuclear talks between Iran and major powers were creeping towards the finish line on
Friday as negotiators wrestled with sticking points including questions about Tehran's past atomic research. Iran is in talks with the United
States and five other powers - Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia - on an agreement to curtail its nuclear program in exchange for relief
from economic sanctions. "We are coming to the end," said a senior Western diplomat, who added there was no plan to carry on for long past
next Tuesday. "Either we get an agreement or we don't," he said, adding that the process "remains quite difficult". Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif told Iranian state television that "a lot of progress has been made, but still various technical issues remain that need the
other party's political will". Still, all sides say a deal is within reach. U.S., European and Iranian officials, including U.S. Under
Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Iranian deputy foreign ministers Abbas Araqchi and Majid Takhteravanchi, held a six-hour negotiating
session that ended at 3 a.m. on Friday, a senior U.S. official said. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Zarif were due to hold a bilateral session
on Friday, though that meeting was delayed several times. Russia's chief negotiator Sergei Ryabkov said the
text of the agreement
was more than 90 percent complete. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi voiced confidence that the parties would reach a mutually
acceptable accord. The negotiators missed a June 30 deadline for a final agreement, but have given themselves until July 7, and foreign
ministers not already in Vienna are due to return on Sunday for a final push. A deal, if agreed, would require Iran to severely curtail uranium
enrichment work for more than a decade to ensure it would need at least one year's "breakout time" to produce enough highly enriched
uranium for a single weapon, compared with current estimates of two to three months. QUESTIONS ABOUT IRAN'S PAST Western
and
Iranian officials said there were signs of a compromise emerging on one of the major sticking points: access to
Iranian sites to monitor compliance with a future agreement. A senior Iranian official in Vienna said on Thursday that Iran would sign up to an
IAEA inspection regime called the Additional Protocol, which would be provisionally implemented at the start of a deal and later ratified by
Iran's parliament. The Protocol allows IAEA inspectors increased access to sites where they suspect nuclear activity is taking place, but U.S.
officials say it is insufficient because Iran has in the past stalled by dragging out negotiations over access requests. The
Iranian official
said Iran could also agree to a system of "managed access" - which is strictly limited to protect legitimate military or
industrial secrets - to relevant military sites.
Obama’s political capital is key to getting the US to agree to Iran peace
Carol Lee 7/2/2015 “White House Gears Up for Domestic-Policy Offensive”, Wall Street Journal,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/02/white-house-gears-up-for-domestic-policy-offensive/
The renewed domestic offensive, coupled with an aggressive front on foreign-policy issues, are a reflection of a
president who is, as former senior White House adviser David Axelrod recently told The Wall Street Journal, “feeling the
pressures of time.” The challenge for Mr. Obama will be in the places where his domestic and foreign policy agendas intersect. The
president has limited political capital in Congress. And he needs lawmakers to back–or at least not amass a
veto-proof majority opposition to–a nuclear deal with Iran if one is finalized in coming days. He’ll also need to generate
enough support among Republican and Democratic lawmakers for lifting the embargo on Cuba, which on Wednesday he again called on
Congress to do as he announced finalized plans to open an American embassy in Havana. It’s unclear if Mr. Obama will also be able to persuade
Congress to act on issues such as infrastructure, business taxes and the criminal justice system. But White House officials have been instructed
to make a strong effort. “We are going to squeeze every last ounce
as long as I have the privilege of holding this office,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday.
of progress that we can make when I have the privilege–
Failure means US-Iran conflict because of tanked relations
Ryan Costello 11/5/2014 (joined NIAC in April 2013 as a Policy Fellow) “Can Obama and the
Republican Congress Seal an Iran Nuclear Deal?”, http://www.niacouncil.org/can-obama-republicancongress-seal-iran-nuclear-deal/
With the Republicans gaining control of both houses of the U.S. Congress, polarization and partisan gridlock are
likely to continue to grip Washington. The grim political outlook has already cast a shadow over nuclear
negotiations with Iran, where a diplomatic breakthrough remains within reach as the parties near a
November 24 deadline for a comprehensive deal. While the parties have a number of difficult choices left to make, the risks
of failing to reach an agreement by the November deadline (or shortly thereafter) are significantly higher than they were in July. Given the
landscape of domestic politics in both the U.S. and Iran, there may
not be a better chance to ink a durable deal than
over the next few weeks. Since the U.S. and UN powers secured an interim agreement to freeze Iran’s nuclear program last November,
President Obama has worked closely with Congressional allies to prevent any new sanctions from passing that
would violate that agreement. Republicans in the minority clamored to vote on new Iran sanctions, but their motivations could have been due
to politics rather than policy. An
affirmative vote on Iran sanctions would have killed the agreement, likely fracturing
international unity on the sanctions and potentially pushing the U.S. and Iran toward military confrontation.
Fortunately, Congress held off, enabling us to test Iran’s intentions. As a result, the interim agreement has been an unmitigated
success. Iran has capped enrichment at the 5% level, eliminated its stockpile of uranium enriched to the 20% level, and frozen the number of
centrifuges it is operating. Further, Iran has enabled daily access to its enrichment facilities, compared with bimonthly inspections before the
deal. However, the
future Republican Senate could tip the scales in favor of Congress passing new Iran
sanctions. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sought to avoid such a vote to allow negotiations to proceed. However, with Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) as Majority Leader, a vote on new Iran sanctions becomes far more likely – regardless of the
outcome of talks. McConnell has pursued a policy of obstruction over the past six years, seeking to deny the President any significant policy
achievements and then blaming the President for Washington’s dysfunction. Despite the obvious benefits of a nuclear deal and the dire
consequences of failure, McConnell could continue his policy of denying the President a share of any policy wins. Further, based on statements
when the Republicans were in the minority, McConnell would be likely to have the near-full backing of his caucus. All but three Republican
Senators signed onto a February letter railing against Reid for blocking a vote on new Iran sanctions, and McConnell himself affirmed that he
would push for a vote if a final nuclear agreement doesn’t meet his (near impossible) expectations. As a result, the President might be forced to
veto new sanctions and ensure that one-third of the House or Senate block an override of the veto — a highly tenuous but potentially
defensible position. However, there is a key factor working in favor of Republicans holding their fire that didn’t exist before the elections. Now
that the Republicans are in control of Congress, their choices are no longer cost free. If they ratchet up sanctions, they will own the
consequences: the unraveling of the greatest opportunity to resolve the nuclear impasse and prevent war in decades, and one we may not see
again. This could greatly diminish the Republicans’ chances in 2016 presidential elections by further tying them to the war-happy
neoconservative camp. Regardless, the longer the President waits to strike an accord, the weaker his hand will be.
Given that the President’s strategy will be to utilize executive authority written into Congressional sanctions legislation to temporarily relieve
sanctions in the initial phases of the agreement – and delay a Congressional vote to lift sanctions until the later stages of a deal – the
negotiating parties would be wise to frontload as much of the agreement as possible. If
both sides show that they are upholding
their side of the bargain over time, the harder it will be for Congress or the President’s successor to
dismantle what will be a very good deal. President Rouhani, as well, will face diminishing political
prospects without an agreement in the near-term. Rouhani has invested the vast majority of his political capital in securing a
nuclear deal, which holds the best likelihood of long-term economic relief for Iran’s sanctions-plagued economy. Rather than open up new
domestic political fronts that could jeopardize the Supreme Leader’s support for an agreement, Rouhani has ceded many fights to the
hardliners. Thus, while Rouhani has maintained the upper hand on the nuclear issue, hardliners have been able to keep the domestic status quo
more or less intact. The amplification of executions and other human rights abuses by the hardline Judiciary appear aimed at embarrassing
Rouhani as he reaches out to the outside world and weakening popular support for his administration. The longer Rouhani goes without striking
a deal, the more the hardliners will escalate their attacks and the longer it will take him to turn to the domestic agenda that helped get him
elected. But if
Rouhani succeeds and obtains a nuclear deal, he will strengthen his political clout and
diminish the threat of war that has underpinned the securitization of the domestic sphere in Iran.
Fortunately, the high stakes should enable the parties to strike and sell an agreement. If the talks
collapse, “escalation would be the name of the game,” as Acting Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman stated
recently. Under such a scenario, the U.S. would certainly amplify punishing sanctions on Iran, Iran’s nuclear
program would expand in response, and there would be a renewed threat of a costly, counterproductive military
conflict when the region is already aflame. However, staving off such dire outcomes and securing the mutual benefits of a deal will not get
easier. Both Presidents Obama and Rouhani need to seize the moment before their domestic opponents gain the
upper hand.
Escalation is guaranteed because of regional draw-in
Trabanco 9 – Independent researcher of geopoltical and military affairs (1/13/09, José Miguel Alonso
Trabanco, “The Middle Eastern Powder Keg Can Explode at anytime,”
**http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11762**)
In case of an Israeli and/or American attack against Iran, Ahmadinejad's government will certainly respond. A possible
countermeasure would be to fire Persian ballistic missiles against Israel and maybe even against American military bases in the regions.
Teheran will unquestionably resort to its proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah (or even some of its Shiite allies it has in
Lebanon or Saudi Arabia) to carry out attacks against Israel, America and their allies, effectively setting in flames a large
portion of the Middle East. The ultimate weapon at Iranian disposal is to block the Strait of Hormuz. If such chokepoint is indeed
asphyxiated, that would dramatically increase the price of oil, this a very threatening retaliation because it will bring intense financial and
economic havoc upon the West, which is already facing significant trouble in those respects. In short, the necessary conditions
for a
major war in the Middle East are given. Such conflict could rapidly spiral out of control and thus a
relatively minor clash could quickly and dangerously escalate by engulfing the whole region and perhaps
even beyond. There are many key players: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Persians and their respective allies and
some great powers could become involved in one way or another (America, Russia, Europe, China). Therefore,
any miscalculation by any of the main protagonists can trigger something no one can stop. Taking into consideration that
the stakes are too high, perhaps it is not wise to be playing with fire right in the middle of a powder keg.
UQ
Iran Deal Now- Domestics
Deal will pass – Iran making concession – US review means Obama PC is critical
Margaret Brennan 7/3/2015 “Iran hints at way around nuke talks roadblock”,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-nuclear-talks-military-sites-access-enrichment-vienna/
VIENNA -- Iran
is prepared to allow weapons inspectors some managed access to its military sites, a senior official
from Tehran said Thursday, but will not allow "anytime, anywhere" inspections of its military installations. Determining the scope of
access that IAEA weapons inspectors will get has been the main sticking point holding up a deal in the
nuclear negotiations in Vienna, according to American officials. However, the Iranian official signaled a potential way
around the roadblock. Iran is willing to sign onto international standards -- the so-called Additional Protocol -- that
would allow IAEA inspectors "managed access" to suspect sites, but still allow Iran to protect its "military secrets." "By
accepting the Additional Protocol we do not mean that all the doors of our military complexes will be opened for the inspectors to see
whatever they want, whoever they want, get whatever information they want," the senior Iranian official told reporters Thursday . That
workaround may allow enough political cover to convince hardliners within the Iranian military to allow
diplomats to strike an accord here in Vienna. Senior Obama Administration officials have indicated that they recognize any
demand to inspect any and all Iranian military installations would be unrealistic. "The entry point isn't 'we must be able to get into every
military site,' because the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site," a senior Obama Administration
official told reporters. "We
have worked out a process that will insure that the IAEA has the access it needs."
American negotiators are under a time crunch, but Iran is willing to keep bargaining. The senior Iranian official
said his team was "not pressed by time" and "it is not the end of the world" if they miss the July 9 deadline set by the U.S. Congress. But
Obama Administration officials aim to wrap up this agreement in a matter of days. "We do not see a new
deadline," the senior Iranian official said. "From our side, I think that July 7th, 8th, 9th does not have much of a difference." U.S.
lawmakers plan to take 60 rather than 30 days to review any potential deal if Secretary of State John Kerry is unable to
deliver them a copy of a final agreement by July 9. An extended review period would heighten the political risks involved in
building support for a deal the Administration hopes to be the crowning achievement of President Obama's foreign policy legacy.
International deal will be made – Iran has made the right concessions
Ramin Jahanbegloo 7/2/2015 (The writer is Noor-York Chair in Islamic Studies, York University,
Toronto) “The Deal in Iran”, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-deal-in-iran/99/
The marathon nuclear talks between Iran and the major powers continue, while both sides are trying to keep their cards
close to the chest in order to get to what Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called a “just” deal. The intensity and
complexity of the negotiations between Zarif, US Secretary of State John Kerry and other foreign ministers have sparked
speculation that the accord on Iran’s nuclear ambitions will not be signed immediately, but only in a few days time.
Under the new framework drawn up in Lausanne, Iran agrees to substantially scale down its nuclear
activities to prevent any attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran is making concession to move the deal forward
Paul Richter 7/3/2015 “Iran tries last-minute bargaining tactic in nuclear talks”, LA Times,
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-talks-20150703-story.html
Negotiators for Iran and the six world powers – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – appear
close to completing a deal that would lift economic sanctions on Iran if it accepts limits intended to prevent it from
obtaining a nuclear bomb for the next 10 to 15 years. But bargaining has been tough in the past several days as the two
sides have maneuvered for last-minute advantage. The video appeared to be aimed at building more pressure and showing that if talks break
down, the fault lies with the United States and other powers, rather than with Iran. It seemed also to be intended to show Zarif's audience back
home that Iran’s negotiating team has been holding strong to try to get the best possible deal. As Iranian officials have sometimes done in the
past, Zarif also promised that if a deal was done, Iran could help the other countries with what he said was the greatest threat facing the
Mideast: the Islamic State militant group. “Our common threat today is the growing threat of violent extremism and outright barbarity,” he
said, referring to “hooded men who are ravaging the cradle of civilization.” Zarif
suggested that the negotiators were
extremely near to a deal. The group “has never been closer to a lasting outcome,” he said. A senior Obama
administration official would not comment on the video. The official, who declined to be identified citing State Department rules, told a group
of reporters that negotiators were “in the endgame of all this.” But he said a number of tough issues remained, some of which he said could
only be resolved at the the level of foreign ministers, including Secretary of State John F. Kerry. Earlier Friday, the United Nations’ nuclear
watchdog agency said it had made progress this week on a central issue in the talks: its examination of Tehran’s alleged past nuclear activity.
But it said it hadn’t fully resolved the issue. Yukia Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a statement after
a visit to Tehran on Thursday that the IAEA and Iran “have a better understanding on some ways forward, though more work will be needed.”
He said he and Iranian officials had also discussed how the IAEA will monitor Iran’s nuclear activities under the proposed deal. He didn’t
comment on whether the two sides had made progress in trying to sort out how much latitude IAEA inspectors will have in monit oring Iran’s
nuclear activity. A senior Iranian official put a more positive interpretation on the meeting. Abbas Araqchi,
a deputy prime minister,
said the meeting was “positive and successful” and asserted that Tehran is “ready to settle” the
controversial issue of Iran’s alleged past research into nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
Iran’s past nuclear activities, and particularly alleged work on military applications, has been a major obstacle in efforts to
settle the 13-year-old conflict between Tehran and world powers over its nuclear program.
Iran Deal Now
US-Iran deal almost complete- major hurdles have been crossed and it’s 90% written
Jo Biddle and Siavosh Ghazi, July 4, 2015, Powers cite progress on Iran nuclear deal, end in sight,
http://news.yahoo.com/iaea-chief-says-more-needed-iran-visit-085650593.html
Global powers and Iran hit the final straights of marathon talks Saturday, amid signs some of the toughest
hurdles blocking a deal to curb the Iranian nuclear programme may have been resolved. After a 13-year standoff which has
poisoned Iran's international relations, the UN atomic watchdog voiced hopes of a breakthrough to complete a stalled probe into whether
Tehran sought to develop nuclear arms in the past. And
on complicated moves to ease a web of sanctions, there were
indications that at least at the level of experts some understanding may have been thrashed out, although
discussions continued as a new Tuesday deadline looms. The so-called P5+1 -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -are trying to draw the curtain on almost two years of roller-coaster negotiations, which gathered fresh impetus after President Hassan Rouhani
took power in late 2013. The aim is to finalise a deal which would put a nuclear bomb beyond Iran's reach, in return for lifting biting
international sanctions slapped on the Islamic republic, some of which date back to 1995. IAEA
chief Yukiya Amano told reporters
after a whirlwind visit to Tehran that progress had been made as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seeks to ensure
that any deal is "technically sound." "With the cooperation from Iran, I think we can issue a report by the end of the year on the ... clarification
of the issues related to possible military dimensions," Amano told reporters after his talks in Tehran earlier this week. Iran has long denied it
has sought to develop a nuclear bomb and has so far refused UN inspectors access to sensitive military sites to verify its claims. The standoff
has stalled an IAEA probe into the allegations that before 2003, and possibly since, Iran conducted research work into developing nuclear
weapons. US
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, were back at the negotiating
table early Saturday seeking to finalise the deal. Meanwhile, it also seemed there had been some agreement at
expert level on how to ease a web of UN, EU, and US sanctions. A Western official told AFP that a deal "was possible" on the
US sanctions "but there is no agreement yet on the UN" embargoes. "There are still differences which are being discussed," an Iranian official
insisted. And a senior US administration official said: "Even if and when issues get resolved at an experts' level, there will remain some open
issues that can only be decided by ministers." - Ministers returning - As hopes grew for a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, and
Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier were expected back in Vienna on Sunday. It was not immediately clear if EU foreign policy chief Federica
Mogherini would also return. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who was to hold a second meeting later Saturday with US
Secretary of State John Kerry, said the world had "never been closer" to reaching a ground-breaking deal. In a rare move, he also offered the
promise of greater cooperation to tackle other global problems, such as the rise of the Islamic State group, should the deal be sealed. Iran was
ready to strike "a balanced and good deal," Zarif said in an English message posted on YouTube, which could "open new horizons to address
important common challenges". "Our common threat today is the growing menace of violent extremism and outright barbarism," he said in a
clear reference to the Islamic State (IS) jihadist group that has overrun parts of Syria and Iraq. Russian
diplomats have said the
complex accord, which will stretch to at least 20 pages with a slew of technical annexes, is "90%" written.
Iran Deal Now- Sanctions Agreement
Deal is close- agreement on sanctions relief has been reached
George Jahn and Bradley Klapper 7/4/2015, World powers, Iran reach tentative deal on sanctions
relief, The Times of Israel, http://www.timesofisrael.com/tentative-agreement-on-iran-sanctions-relief/
World powers and Iran have reached tentative agreement on sanctions relief for the Islamic Republic,
among the most contentious issues in a long-term nuclear agreement that negotiators hope to clinch
over the next several days, diplomats told The Associated Press on Saturday. The annex, one of five meant to accompany the
agreement, outlines which US and international sanctions will be lifted and how quickly. Diplomats said senior officials of the seven-nation
talks, which include US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, still had to sign off on the package.
Still, the
word of significant progress indicated the sides were moving closer to a comprehensive accord
that would set a decade of restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for tens of billions of
dollars’ in economic benefits for the Iranians. Officials had described sanctions relief as one of the
thorniest disagreements between Iran and the United States, which has led the international pressure campaign against
Iran’s economy. The US and much of the world fears Iran’s enrichment of uranium and other activity could be designed to make nuclear
weapons; Iran says its program is meant only to generate power and for other peaceful purposes.The annex, one of five meant to accompany
the agreement, outlines which US and international sanctions will be lifted and how quickly. Diplomats said senior officials of the seven-nation
talks, which include US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, still had to sign off on the package.
Deal passes congress
Obama has support for deal in Congress- his veto can prevent them from rejecting the
deal
Reuters 7/4/2015, Despite progress in Iran nuclear talks, dispute over U.N. sanctions persists,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/04/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150704
In Washington, the Republican-led
Congress has already set up roadblocks, ramming through a law earlier this year that
prevents Obama from lifting any US sanctions on Iran for 60 days after a deal while Congress reviews any agreement. Key US lawmakers
expect the talks in Vienna to extend past the self-imposed June 30 deadline. Political terms of a hastily worked out
arrangement with the White House means Congress can't sink a deal with Iran unless its terms are so
weak that more than two-thirds of lawmakers vote against it. "Most likely, House and Senate have the
votes to disapprove the deal but not to override a presidential veto," said Tom Z Collina, policy director at the
Ploughshares Fund, an anti-nuclear weapons group. For now, Obama has the support he needs from his own party to
continue with the talks. Democrats have signalled they will support the president so long as any
agreement with Iran meets key criteria, including so called "snap-back" sanctions which can be renewed quickly in the event of
violations.
Obama still has enough support in Congress to pass the deal- he just has to hold
democrats in place to prevent a veto override
NAHAL TOOSI and MICHAEL CROWLEY 7/7/2015, John Kerry plays it cool in final push for Iran deal,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/iran-us-negotiations-continue-119807.html
Iran has always said that all sanctions related to its nuclear program must eventually be lifted and has
denounced past U.N. resolutions against it. “It’s been clear from the beginning, and the 2013 interim Joint Plan of Action explicitly confirmed it,
that the negotiation would need to address all U.N. Security Council resolutions, and those resolutions do include
provisions on ballistic missiles and on the arms embargo,” said Simond de Galbert, a former member of France’s nuclear negotiating team and
now a visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Iran
is well aware of the pressure
Congress could bring to bear on any deal, and its decision to bring up the arms embargo and ballistic missiles could be a bet that
the U.S. will cave to some demands to avoid giving lawmakers extra time to scrutinize the agreement. Thanks to a law reluctantly signed by
Obama, Congress gets at least 30 calendar days to review a deal. If the agreement is submitted between July 10 and Sept.
7, Congress will have 60 days, in part to accommodate the summer recess in August. The law, spearheaded by Corker, says only that the full
text of an agreement must be “transmitted” to congressional leaders, and does not specify how, meaning negotiators could theoretically email
an agreement just before midnight Eastern time Thursday (or 6 a.m. Friday in Vienna). Under the law, Congress
must vote by the
end of its review period on whether to approve the deal and allow the president to suspend U.S.
sanctions on Tehran. Even if the Republican-led Congress votes to disapprove of a deal, administration
officials believe they can muster enough Democrats to uphold a presidential veto and preserve the
accord. Asked about the likelihood of a longer congressional review, White House spokesman Josh Earnest stressed
that much of it would be vacation time for lawmakers. “It’s not as if Congress is going to spend the entire
60 days studying this agreement,” he said.
At: Uq O/Whelms Link
Congressional passage isn’t guaranteed- the GOP is pressuring Democrats to get
enough votes for a veto proof resolution
BURGESS EVERETT 7/8/15, Congress all but powerless to block Iran deal, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/congress-all-but-powerless-to-block-iran-deal-119821.html
If there is a deal, Republican leaders will have to weigh whether to have a vote on an approval resolution, which
they would try to use to demonstrate tepid public support, or to try and persuade enough Democrats to block the
lifting of sanctions. Corker said he’s spoken privately with McConnell about how to proceed. “We’ve obviously discussed every option
known to man,” Corker said on Tuesday evening. “I don’t know what direction we will attempt to take.” Republican critics aren’t yet
ready to admit that 34 or more Democrats will automatically stand with the president and spurn
attempts to block the deal. “I really think there’s a better than 50/50 chance that we’ll get enough ‘no’
votes,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “If the Arabs come out and say this is a bad deal, if AIPAC says this is a bad deal, if public
opinion says we don’t trust this deal, then our Democratic colleagues will hopefully come forward to
say, ‘We can do better.’” Needing at least 13 Democratic votes in the Senate to build a veto-proof
majority, Republicans are focusing on a number of lawmakers, including powerful foreign policy lawmakers like Sen.
Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and centrists like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Most Democrats say they won’t simply go along with
what the president and Kerry negotiate; the content of a deal, they insist, matters.
Links
Generic
Plan encounters overwhelming opposition due to ideology, security fears, and vested
interests – no risk of a link turn
Forno 15 (Dr. Richard, Ph.D. from Curtin University of Technology in 2010, directs the University of
Maryland Baltimore County's Graduate Cybersecurity Program, is the Assistant Director of UMBC's
Center for Cybersecurity, and a lecturer in the UMBC Department of Computer Science and Electrical
Engineering, “Regarding the Politics of Surveillance Reform,” May 24,
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2015/05/regarding-politics-surveillance-reform)
What does this all mean for the politics of meaningful surveillance reform? Over the years, much has been written or said about
the legal, technical, and practical merits of surveillance and privacy. Civil liberties advocates and other reform-minded individuals continue to
strive for meaningful change (or resistance) where possible on areas they see as an excessive application of governmental power in society.
And, admittedly, there probably are other surveillance techniques in-place that have not yet been disclosed but likely would be deemed
controversial by American citizens. However, regardless of what is or is not known about surveillance programs in the United States, I (cynically)
believe much of the resistance
of political and law enforcement officials to any slight, let alone meaningful, reform
of domestic surveillance capabilities is the result of three overarching interests: 1) Political job security. No elected
official of any party wants to say they didn't "do all they could" on matters of national security -- and
especially after an incident or when the potential for an incident remains in the public mind. To that end, officials
will err on the side of reactionary caution and embrace practically anything that can be seen (or marketed to
citizens) as helping keep them safe from any number of real or perceived threats, regardless of its
effectiveness or (in the case of Section 215) its legality. Fear of being held accountable by a misinformed electorate if the worst should
come to pass --- what else can explain the dogmatic views of Senate leaders in their ongoing attempts to reauthorize Section
215? The only way to meaningfully reform national policy (and especially defense procurement or security policies like USA 'PATRIOT') is to
reform the electoral process by enacting term limits for legislators -- but no politician is going to change the system that puts them in office.
Thus, they are
trapped not only by special interests funding their next campaign, but by an unwillingness to "stick their
neck out" and take hard decisions that they might have to defend later on. 2) A national aversion to risk. Closely tied to #1, there
remains a deep-seated aversion to anything bad happening in the country, ever. Unfortunately, the United States
tends to address risk in ways other than through rational, objective analysis. For example, much of the risk-reward analysis used in national
security circles since 9/11 tends to be skewed toward what Ron Suskind called the "One Percent Doctrine" -- namely, that if there's a 1% chance
of something bad happening, we must treat it as thought it was a 100% certainty. Accordingly, since 9/11, American society has become
conditioned to be completely fearful of any number of potential terrorist risks despite other persistent and perennial sources of trauma and
death in the country such as from guns, heart disease, cancer, or drunk driving. Therefore, politcians
are eager to demonstrate
their 'support' for protecting the country and "doing all they can" toward that noble goal. Consequently, this
leads to philosophical and political debates over "just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD necessarily do it" regarding
emerging security capabilities and policies, with the former typically winning out in the near-term. One current example is the federal
government's renewed desire to obtain an operationally if not also mathematically impossible "good guys only" backdoor to strong encryption
technologies in order to facilitate easy electronic communications surveillance by the government to 'protect' its citizens. 3) Boys/Girls With
Toys. Since 9/11, federal,
state, and local law enforcement have been the beneficiaries of significant new
assets, ranging from tactical mine-resistant armored vehicles and helicopters to grenade launchers, body armor, IMSI catchers
('Stingrays') and a network of poorly-monitored 'intelligence fusion centers' that produce dubious intelligence 'analysis'. Such
assets, once gained, are not easily relinquished -- local police have loudly condemned the president's recently announced plans to
de-militarize America's local law enforcement departments by removing much of the overt military hardware they've accumulated over the
years. Federal law enforcement is no different when it comes to giving up or no longer having broad powers and capabilities such as those
under Section 215 -- even though it's been repeatedly shown not to have been helpful in investigations, FBI Director Comey continues lobbying
for its renewal. This is not surprising, since the USA 'PATRIOT' Act, intended as a response to 9/11 terrorism, has been used in other nonterrorism related investigations since its enactment. By extension, an
unwillingness to relinquish authorities, capabilities,
or powers may well explain why fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, America is still operating under a Presidential Declaration of
National Emergency. More locally, the number of towns with license plate reader cameras on every street corner continues to grow -- is there
really such an epidemic of stolen cars that warrants (ha!) this level of regional surveillance, or is it just a convenient narrative to tell
communities as more units are deployed? Again, once a law enforcement capability or government authority is received, it rarely gets
relinquished easily.
Obama Fights Plan
Obama would use PC to fight against the plan- favors expansion of surveillance
Farnia in 2011 (Nina Farnia, “Shoring Up the National Security state”, JSTOR.org, Middle East
Research and Information Project (MERIP) summer 2011, 4 pgs. 7/3/15,
http://jstor.org/stable/41407966
Many expected the Obama administration to slow or altogether stop the growth of the national security
state that its two predecessor administrations brought into being, but just the opposite has occurred.
Prisoners are still held without charge at Guantanamo Bay; the Patriot Act is still the law; the
administration has retained the use of rendition and protected state secrets with punitive vigor.
President Barack Obama's Justice Department has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all others
combined. In key respects, indeed, the Obama administration has expanded and institutionalized the
national security state. On the one hand, the administration is reinvigorating age-old policies such as the
Espionage Act of 1917, which it is using to try whistleblowers. One the other hand, it has attempted to bring previously
unprotected law enforcement and detention practices, such as military tribunals and the suspension of habeas corpus, under the umbrella of
legality. Unlike the Bush administration, which often acted outside the law, the
Obama administration is intent on protecting
itself by using the law. In fact, an article by civil rights attorney Bill Quigley reports that over 2,600 activists have been
arrested since Obama was elected. While this figure is surely below the actual number, it reveals a steady increase over previous
years. And the Obama administration has yet to abandon the Bush administrations racial and religious
profiling. To the contrary, the Obama administration has also begun a widespread effort to prosecute
individuals based on political and ideological profiling. The Bush administration often targeted Muslim charities and
mosques, accusing them of material support for terrorism. But during Bush's eight years in office, that charge was rarely used against nonMuslims. Now the Obama administration is using the same allegation to go after primarily non-Muslim activists engaged in international
solidarity with Palestine. Two ongoing cases illustrate the extent of profiling in government investigations and the continuity between
administrations in shoring up the national security state.
President Obama defends NSA and other programs- The president supports every part
of the NSA
Reilly in 2013 (Mollie Reilly, Political Editor, 6/18/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/obama-nsa-surveillance_n_3455771.html, 7/3/15)
President Barack Obama further defended the National Security Agency's collection of phone and other
electronic records to PBS' Charlie Rose, calling the program "transparent." In a pretaped interview set to air Monday evening, Obama gave
a forceful defense of the program, saying that the NSA had not unlawfully targeted Americans. "What I can say
unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails … and have not," Obama said, according to a transcript
provided by PBS. Rose pressed Obama on the point, according to the transcript: Rose: So I hear you saying, I have no problem with what NSA has been doing. Obama: Well, let me — let me
what happens is that the FBI — if, in fact, it now wants to get content; if, in fact, it wants to start
tapping that phone — it’s got to go to the FISA court with probable cause and ask for a warrant. Rose: But has FISA
finish, because I don’t. So,
court turned down any request? Obama: The — because — the — first of all, Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small… number one. Number two, folks don’t go with a query
Obama
said the program had "disrupted" terrorist plots in the United States as well as overseas. The president
pointed specifically to the prosecution of Najibullah Zazi, who was arrested in 2009 as part of a plan to
bomb the New York City subway system. "Now, we might have caught him some other way. We might
unless they’ve got a pretty good suspicion. Rose: Should this be transparent in some way? Obama: It is transparent. That’s why we set up the FISA court. Later in the interview,
have disrupted it because a New York cop saw he was suspicious," Obama said. "Maybe he turned out to be
incompetent and the bomb didn’t go off. But at the margins we are increasing our chances of preventing
a catastrophe like that through these programs." While Zazi's name has come up frequently in defense of
the NSA, the Associated Press and others have thrown cold water on the talking point, stating that the email the
NSA says led to the plot's disruption could have been intercepted without the PRISM program. Obama struck a
similar tone during a June 7 speech in San Jose, Calif., saying that Congress has been briefed on the programs' details. " The programs are secret in the sense
that they are classified. They are not secret, in that every member of Congress has been briefed," he said. "These are programs that
have been authored by large bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006." White House chief of staff Denis McDonough also stood
by the program on Sunday during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," insisting that Obama "does not" have privacy concerns related to the NSA's phone records collection. "The
president is not saying, 'Trust me,'" he said. "The president is saying, 'I want every member of Congress,
on whose authority we are running this program, to be briefed on it, to come to the administration with
questions and to also be accountable for it.'"
Controversy Drains PC
Controversial policies drain political capital
Burke, University of Vermont political science professor, 9
(John P., Presidential Studies Quarterly 39.3 (Sept 2009), “The Contemporary Presidency: The Obama
Presidential Transition: An Early Assessment”, p574 (31). Academic One; accessed 7-15-10)
President Obama
signaled his intention to make a clean break from the unpopular Bush presidency with his
executive orders and early policy and budget proposals. At the same time, he also sought to tamp down public expectations for quick results on the economy. Early-and ambitious--actions were taken, but as he cautioned in his inaugural address, "the challenges we face are real" and they "will not be met easily or in a short
span of time." His
initial political capital seemed high. But was the right course of action chosen? The decision
was made to embrace a broad range of policy reforms, not just to focus on the economy. Moreover, it
was a controversial agenda. His early efforts to gain bipartisan support in Congress--much like those of
his predecessors--seem largely for naught and forced the administration to rely on narrow partisan
majorities. The question that remains is whether his political capital, both in Congress and with the
public, will bring him legislative--and ultimately policy--success. Good transition planning is propitious, but it offers no
guarantees. Still, without it, political and policy disaster likely awaits. So far, President Obama seems to reside largely on the
positive side of the equation. But what the future might portend remains another matter.
Internal Links
I/L- Obama Push
Obama must push congress to approve sanction removal- sequencing is key
George Jahn and Bradley Klapper 7/4/2015, World powers, Iran reach tentative deal on sanctions
relief, The Times of Israel, http://www.timesofisrael.com/tentative-agreement-on-iran-sanctions-relief/
Along with inspection guidelines and rules governing Iran’s research and development of advanced nuclear technology, the
sanctions
annex of the agreement had been among the toughest issues remaining to be resolved. Iranian officials,
including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have made repeated demands for economic penalties to be lifted
shortly after a deal is reached. Washington and its partners have said they’d take action after Iran verifiably complies with
restrictions on enrichment and other elements of the nuclear program. Much of the negotiation on the matter has
concerned sequencing, so that both sides can legitimately claim to have gotten their way. Several other matters related to
sanctions also had posed problems. The Obama administration cannot move too quickly to remove
economic penalties because of Congress, which will have a 30-day review period for any agreement
during which no sanctions can be waived.
Obama must fight for the Iran deal to get through Congress
Al-Jazeera 6/29/15, Iran nuclear deal tough sell for US Congress, https://enmaktoob.news.yahoo.com/iran-nuclear-deal-tough-sell-us-congress-072617315.html
As negotiators in Vienna push to complete the final terms of a nuclear agreement with Iran, President Barack
Obama faces a crucial test at home - winning over a sceptical and potentially troublesome US Congress.
Opposition from Israel and lack of support from Saudi Arabia could help sink a deal in Congress if
negotiators fail to achieve ironclad rules preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Recent comments
from Iran suggest that will be a challenge. At the same time, if Iran succeeds in concluding a viable UN agreement, continuing
opposition by the US Congress could leave the US isolated as major trading partners - the European Union and China - move forward with
sanctions relief. "No matter how good the agreement is, it is going to come under attack," Shibley Telhami, a professor at the University of
Maryland told Al Jazeera. "It
is going to be a fight and this is what the Obama administration is bracing for."
PC key to Iran Deal
Obama’s political capital is key to getting the Iran deal through congress- he will need
lobby democrats
Alexander Bolton - 07/06/15, Dems raise pressure on Obama over Iran nuclear deal,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/247003-dems-raise-pressure-on-obama-over-iran-nuclear-deal
Top Senate Democrats
are issuing hard-line demands for a nuclear deal with Iran, highlighting the challenge
facing the Obama administration in securing congressional approval for one of the president’s top foreign policy
priorities. The administration faces a Tuesday deadline for securing a deal with Iran, and it must send text of the deal to Congress byThursday to
trigger a 30-day clock for lawmakers to review it. If Thursday’s deadline is missed, lawmakers will have 60 days to consider it, which could allow
opposition to build. It
does not appear that the emerging deal will meet all of the demands from Republicans
and Democrats, including calls for “anytime, anywhere” inspections in Iran. That could make it tougher for the
administration to prevent 67 senators from voting to disapprove of it. “If the deal doesn’t meet the conditions set
forth in the bipartisan statement organized by the Washington Institute, the administration could face some serious
problems persuading Democrats to stick with the deal,” said Patrick Clawson, the director of research at the Washington
Institute on Near East Policy. The group organized a bipartisan statement in late June laying out conditions supported by influential Democrats,
such as Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Bipartisan Senate support for a resolution of
disapproval would encourage House Democrats to vote for it, though an intense lobbying campaign by the administration could be enough to
quash a rebellion. “It would have momentum, but I think a
lot is going to depend on everything that accompanies this.
The narrative is completely owned by the White House here,” said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and
defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. She says it will be difficult to assess how the deal will be interpreted on Capitol Hill
because administration officials will dominate the narrative in the early days. “They’ve
already got their people out there
lobbying very aggressively and the president has an enormous amount of power in this country,
frankly much more power than the Congress at this point,” she added. “He has the power to affect the
fortunes of individual members of Congress.”
Obama needs political capital- Congress is gearing up for a big debate over Iran
Dan Roberts Washington 7/7/2015, Think the Iran nuclear talks are taking forever? Wait until
Congress sees a deal, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/07/iran-nucleardeal-us-congress-lobbying
Washington lobbyists are bracing themselves for a protracted summer fight over the Iran nuclear deal after
the latest delay in international negotiations looks certain to trigger a longer-than-anticipated congressional review process. The latest threeday extension of the nuclear talks in Vienna takes the deadline for completing the final deal beyond a 10 July cut-off date established by US
lawmakers to ensure they were able to review it without disrupting their August recess. The detail of legislation passed in May means that any
deal that reaches Congress between 10 July and 7 September is subject to a 60-day review period by lawmakers
rather than the faster 30-day treatment it would receive if it landed outside the summer months. The White House
remains confident it can persuade enough lawmakers to back what its negotiators come up with
regardless of the length of the review period, but the added time is prompting both opponents and
supporters of the deal to step up their lobbying efforts in anticipation of intense debate in Washington
over whether it does enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “We expect millions of dollars will be spent on
both sides of this issue and are now girded for a more extended fight: we are ready for that,” said Dylan
Williams, vice president of government affairs at J-Street, a liberal US group that backs the outline deal. “I think the extended review
period will not have an impact on public support and congressional support for a deal, but it certainly provides more time for
opponents of the deal to try to peel away congressional support,” he told the Guardian.
Obama PC Up Now
Obama has built up political capital due to recent policy and court wins
Ed Pilkington June 29, 2015, The Guardian, Obama triumphant? President turns gaze to progress on
guns, race and votes, http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/obama-triumphantpresident-guns-race-votes
With the winds of change behind him, a newly confident president has been visible. In contrast to the muted, cautious
politician who hunkered down in the Oval Office through much of the past six years, to the dismay of many of his liberal supporters, a fullthroated progressive firebrand has reemerged, reminiscent of the Barack Obama of 2008 who wowed the country during his first presidential
campaign. That
new-found fire in the belly was evident when the White House was bathed in rainbow
colors on the night of the supreme court ruling on gay marriage – a symbolic gesture approved by Obama less than four
years after he publicly opposed same-sex marriages. Last Friday, it was again on display at the funeral of Reverend
Clementa Pinckney, one of nine victims of the Charleston church shooting. Delivering the eulogy, Obama both metaphorically and
literally found his voice – he memorably sang Amazing Grace to a dazzled crowd of largely black mourners. But after an extraordinary
week, one so rarely enjoyed by presidents of either political colour, what will Obama do with this unexpected boost
to his political capital? As Professor Bruce Buchanan, a specialist in presidential politics at the University of Texas
at Austin, put it: “I think the president has won back some credibility from the vindication of his policy
stances and moral authority from his powerful statement following the Charleston killings. “It remains to be seen if he can use
either as leverage to press his remaining policy ambitions.”
PC is Real
Consensus of studies prove the president wields political capital to get agendas
through
Anthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant
Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia 1025-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶
Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”
The selection of Supreme Court justices is just one of several key powers afforded to the¶ modern presidency. Presidents
use a wide
range of tactics to set policy, including their¶ ability to influence the legislative agenda and staff vacancies to
key independent boards and¶ lower level federal courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents¶ introduce
legislation and define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995;¶ Eshbaugh-Soha 2005, 2010). The State of the
Union Address and other public speeches are¶ important venues for this activity (Canes-Wrone 2001; Cohen 1995, 1997; Light
1999; Yates¶ and Whitford 2005), but they are not the only means through which presidents outline their¶ legislative goals.
Presidents also add items to the legislative agenda intermittently in response¶ to issues or events that they believe require
attention. This may be done either by sending¶ messages to Congress or through presidential communication to legislators'
constituents.¶ While not unconditional, presidents can use their time and resources to secure the passage¶ of key
policy proposals (Edwards and Wood 1999; Light 1999; Neustadt 1955, 1960).
Impacts
Deal Failure = Conflict
Speed – Deal failure causes military confrontation
Ben Winsor 10/2, “A Coalition Is Working Furiously Behind the Scenes to Support Obama’s Iran Talks,”
BUSINESS INSIDER 10—2—14, http://www.businessinsider.com/rag-tag-iran-coalition-backingdiplomacy-2014-10
Since November 2013, the Obama administration has engaged with Iran in tense, drawn-out nuclear negotiations which optimists hope could
Congress has threatened to play the spoiler, with a tough
sanctions bill passing the House and looming in the Senate which would almost certainly scuttle the fragile talks over the Iranian
bring an end to decades of hostility and mistrust. Throughout it all,
nuclear program. Now, as the deadline for the end of the talks approaches, a coalition of legislators, advocacy groups, and White House officials
are working to hold Congress back from the brink of thwarting what they see as a historic window of opportunity. They're fighting against
legislators and conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation and The Free Enterprise Institute who are pushing for the US to take a hawkish
stance. Legislators, led by Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, have been maneuvering quietly behind the scenes in Congress to keep the
talks alive. At the same time, officials from the White House have been leaning heavily on Senate Democrats to refrain from bringing a
sanctions bill to the floor. On the outside, a diverse range of pro-diplomacy groups, led by organisations like the National Iranian American
Council (NIAC) and the liberal Jewish organization J Street, have found a common cause and rallied together to lobby for restraint. Even the
Quakers are energized. “This is a do-or-die moment, either we succeed, or we go in a much more negative direction,” said NIAC co-founder
Trita Parsi at the group’s annual conference last weekend. Parsi sees the negotiations as a historic moment during a narrow window of
opportunity. Presidents on both sides have sunk significant time and energy into the talks and Parsi believes the current leadership in both
countries is more likely to make a deal than those who came before — or might come after. “The next president, whatever political party
failure of
the talks could trigger increased sanctions, the rise of hardliners in Iran, and relations spiraling toward
military confrontation.
they’re in, is not going to spend precious political capital battling Congress… [Obama] is the guy,” Parsi said. Supporters fear that
Conflict Escalates
Escalation would be fast and guaranteed – Russia and Chinese’s interest
Michel Chossudovsky (Professor of Economics University of Ottawa – author of several books about
International Stability) May 2005, “Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran,”
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. Iran is the next military target. The
planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World
domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War. Military
action against Iran would directly involve
Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an
implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks. Israel is a nuclear power with a
sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded,
particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs
and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is
underground") In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat. The planned attack on Iran must be understood in
relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The
conflict could easily
spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and
Georgia, where US troops are stationed. An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also
put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops
in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.) In other words, the shaky
geopolitics of
the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of
Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict. Moreover, US
military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian
sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to
produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.
Iran conflict can escalate to the nuclear option because of competing great power
interests in the Middle East
John Scales Avery, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen,” COUNTERCURRENTS, 11—5—13,
http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm
Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in
Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran. But such an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war, with
catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember that this colossal disaster escalated
minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a
large-scale war in the Middle East, entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable government of
Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran,
thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and China, firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn into a
general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price
of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy. In the dangerous situation
uncontrollably from what was intended to be a
that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or
besides making large areas of the world uninhabitable through long-lasting
radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global agriculture to such a extent that a global famine of previously
unknown proportions would result. Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It could destroy human
civilization and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of
miscalculation. Recent research has shown that
the world, US citizens included.
Escalation is guaranteed- US would be forced to respond
John Scales Avery, Professor, Quantum Chemistry and Thermodynamics, University of Copenhagen,
“Iran: Automatic Escalation to World War III?” Transcend Media Service, 10—1—12,
http://www.transcend.org/tms/2012/10/iran-automatic-escalation-to-world-war-iii/
A few days ago Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh , who is in charge of the Revolutionary Guards missile systems told Iran’s Arabic-language
television network that should Israel and Iran engage militarily, “nothing is predictable… and it will turn into World War III”. He added that Iran
would deem any Israeli strike to be conducted with US authorisation, so “whether the Zionist regime attacks with or without US knowledge,
then we will definitely attack US bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan.” The first point to notice is that an attack on Iran by Israel would be
both criminal and insane. It would be criminal because it would be a violation of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. It
would be insane because it would initiate a conflict that might escalate in an unpredictable way. Such a conflict might easily be the start of a
Third World War. But what General Hajizadeh proposes in his statement is perhaps even more criminal and even more insane. Let us suppose
that Netanyahu’s and his government carry through their irresponsible plan of attacking Iran . If
Iran then responds by attacking US
bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan, then the escalation of the conflict would be absolutely automatic. US leaders
would then have no choice. They would be forced to respond by attacking Iran, despite the danger that Russia, China
and Pakistan would be drawn into the conflict on the side of Iran. One is reminded of the start of World War I,
when a small conflict started by Austria to punish the Serbian Panslavic Movement escalated into a global disaster which still casts a shadow
over the world almost a century later. The difference between 1914 and 2012 is that today we possess all-destroying thermonuclear
weapons.A new world war could lead to the destruction of human civilization and much of the biosphere.
Iran war escalates because of drawing in alliances
Jeffrey White, defense fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “What Would War with Iran
Look Like,” AMERICAN INTEREST, July/August 2011, http://www.the-american-interest.com/articlebd.cfm?piece=982
A U.S.-Iranian war would probably not be fought by theUnited States and Iran alone. Each would have partners
or allies, both willing and not-so-willing. Pre-conflict commitments, longstanding relationships, the course of operations
and other factors would place the United States and Iran at of more or less structured coalitions of the marginally willing. A
Western coalition could consist of the United States and most of its traditional allies (but very likely not Turkey, based on the evolution of
Turkish politics) in addition to some Persian Gulf states, Jordan and perhaps Egypt, depending on where its revolution takes it. Much would
depend on whether U.S. leaders could persuade others to go along, which would mean convincing them that U.S. forces could shield them from
Iranian and Iranian-proxy retaliation, or at least substantially weaken its effects. Coalition warfare would present a number of challenges to the
U.S. government. Overall, it would lend legitimacy to the action, but it would also constrict U.S. freedom of action, perhaps by limiting the
scope and intensity of military operations. There would thus be tension between the desire for a small coalition of the capable for operational
and security purposes and a broader coalition that would include marginally useful allies to maximize legitimacy. The U.S. administration would
probably not welcome Israeli participation. But if Israel were directly attacked by Iran or its allies, Washington would find it difficult to keep
Israel out—as it did during the 1991 Gulf War. That would complicate the U.S. ability to manage its coalition, although it would not necessarily
break it apart. Iranian diplomacy and information operations would seek to exploit Israeli participation to the fullest. Iran
would have its
own coalition. Hizballah in particular could act at Iran’s behest both by attacking Israel directly and by using its asymmetric and
irregular warfare capabilities to expand the conflict and complicate the maintenance of the U.S. coalition. The escalation of
the Hizballah-Israel conflict could draw in Syria and Hamas; Hamas in particular could feel compelled to respond to an Iranian
request for assistance. Some or all of these satellite actors might choose to leave Iran to its fate, especially if initial U.S. strikes seemed
devastating to the point of decisive. But their
involvement would spread the conflictto the entire eastern
Mediterranean and perhaps beyond, complicating both U.S. military operations and coalition diplomacy.
Uncontrollable escalation – draws-in every superpower, specifically US, Russia, and
China – only scenario that rises to the level of extinction
Reuveny, 10 – professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University
(Rafael, “Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression” Gazette Xtra, 8/7, - See more
at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-could-trigger-world-war-iii/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf)
A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences, including a
regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash. For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick
and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is
extremely unlikely since the
locations of some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are not fully known and known
facilities are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems
constructed not only by the Iranians but also the Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant
command and control systems and nuclear facilities, developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles
and upgraded and enlarged its armed forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strike—or even numerous
strikes—could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond. Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel
destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and,
perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation
into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixon’s shipment of
weapons and planes. Today, Israel’s numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. After years
of futilely fighting Palestinian irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superiority—bolstering its enemies’ resolve. Despite Israel’s
touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a
prolonged tit-for-tat. In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israel’s military
resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it
to use its alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973.
An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of
Iran’s capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the
Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil
shipments would likely
slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and
Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe. From there, things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s. The
world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might
fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and
maybe Brazil and Turkey—all of which essentially support Iran—could be tempted to form an alliance and openly
challenge the U.S. hegemony. Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel,
and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obama’s response would likely
put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixon’s nightmarish scenario. Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral
attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the
attack, Iran’s response would likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send weapons
but would probably not risk using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy
tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A
spark World War III.
unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately
Relations !- ME Conflict
Iran-US relations are key to creating a framework that prevents escalation of conflict
in the middle east
Adib-Moghaddam 14 – London Middle East Institute Centre for Iranian Studies chair
[Arshin, MPhil and PhD, Reader in Comparative Politics and International Relations at SOAS, University
of London, interviewed by Firouzeh Mirrazavi, " Renewed Iranian-American Relations Stabilize World
Politics – Interview," Eurasia Review, 2-16-14, www.eurasiareview.com/16022014-renewed-iranianamerican-relations-stabilize-world-politics-interview/, accessed 2-19-14]
I am in no doubt that renewed
Iranian-American relations will have a stabilizing effect on world politics in
general. The two countries have merging interests and ultimately they are actors that can deliver. One of
the reasons why the foreign policy of both countries was not effective in the different strategic theatres that you have
mentioned is exactly because there was no dialogue to align them where necessary. This region needs peace and stability.
The human suffering of the last decades is unbearable. The threat of al-Qaeda continues to be real and urgent. Iran and the United States
must sit on the same table in order to deliberate about how to bring about a security architecture that will
outlaw, once and for all, the use of force in the region. It is central that this is not pursued in exclusion of other regional actors.
Iran and the United States will continue to disagree on a range of issues, certainly Palestine, Hezbollah, Bahrain etc., but I do not see any reason
why these differences could not be negotiated within a diplomatic context. Certainly, they are not more serious than the differences that the
United States has with China.
Iran deal and relaxation of sanctions is key to prevent global proliferation and
instability leading to nuclear conflict.
Philip Stephens, journalist, “The Four Big Truths that Are Shaping the Iran Talks,” FINANCIAL TIMES,
11—14—13, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/af170df6-4d1c-11e3-bf32-00144feabdc0.html, accessed
9-2-14.
The first of these is that Tehran’s acquisition of a
bomb would be more than dangerous for the Middle East and for
wider international security. It would most likely set off a nuclear arms race that would see Saudi Arabia, Turkey and
Egypt signing up to the nuclear club. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would be shattered. A future regional conflict could
draw Israel into launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is not a region obviously susceptible to cold war disciplines of
deterrence. The second ineluctable reality is that Iran has mastered the nuclear cycle. How far it is from building a bomb remains a subject of
debate. Different intelligence agencies give different answers. These depend in part on what the spooks actually know and in part on what their
political masters want others to hear. The progress of an Iranian warhead programme is one of the known unknowns that have often wreaked
havoc in this part of the world. Israel points to an imminent threat. European agencies are more relaxed, suggesting Tehran is still two years or
so away from a weapon. Western diplomats broadly agree that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not taken a definitive decision to step over the line.
What Iran has been seeking is what diplomats call a breakout capability – the capacity to dash to a bomb before the international community
could effectively mobilise against it. The third fact – and this one is hard for many to swallow – is that neither a negotiated settlement nor the
air strikes long favoured by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, can offer the rest of the world a watertight insurance policy. It
should be possible to construct a deal that acts as a plausible restraint – and extends the timeframe for any breakout –
but no amount of restrictions or intrusive monitoring can offer a certain guarantee against Tehran’s future intentions. By the same token,
bombing Iran’s nuclear sites could certainly delay the programme, perhaps for a couple of years. But, assuming that even the hawkish Mr
Netanyahu is not proposing permanent war against Iran, air strikes would not end it. You cannot bomb knowledge and technical expertise. To
try would be to empower those in Tehran who say the regime will be safe only when, like North Korea, it has a weapon. So when Barack Obama
says the US will never allow Iran to get the bomb he is indulging in, albeit understandable, wishful thinking. The best the international
community can hope for is that, in
return for a relaxation of sanctions, Iran will make a judgment that it is better off sticking
with a threshold capability. To put this another way, if Tehran does step back from the nuclear brink it will be because of its own
calculation of the balance of advantage. The fourth element in this dynamic is that Iran now has a leadership that, faced with the severe and
growing pain inflicted by sanctions, is prepared to talk. There is nothing to say that Hassan Rouhani, the president, is any less hardheaded than previous Iranian leaders, but he does seem ready to weigh the options. Seen from this vantage point – and in spite of the
inconclusive outcome – Geneva can be counted a modest success. Iran
and the US broke the habit of more than 30 years and sat
down to talk to each other. Know your enemy is a first rule of diplomacy – and of intelligence. John Kerry has his detractors but, unlike his
predecessor Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state understands that serious diplomacy demands a willingness to take risks. The Geneva
talks illuminated the shape of an interim agreement. Iran will not surrender the right it asserts to uranium
enrichment, but will lower the level of enrichment from 20 per cent to 3 or 4 per cent. It will suspend work on its heavy water
reactor in Arak – a potential source of plutonium – negotiate about the disposal of some of its existing stocks of enriched uranium,
and accept intrusive international inspections. A debate between the six powers about the strength and credibility of such
pledges is inevitable, as is an argument with Tehran about the speed and scope of a run down of sanctions.
At: Future Withdrawal Inevitable
Future presidents wont be able to unravel the deal- there are too many security risks
EMILY CADEI 7/7/15, Could a Republican President Undo an Iran Deal?, Newsweek,
http://www.newsweek.com/could-republican-president-undo-iran-deal-351127
If the United States reaches a nuclear deal with Iran, as negotiators are scrambling to do this week (the deadline has been
extended until Friday), the outcry from Republicans on the 2016 campaign trail is likely to be fierce. Some have already
promised to undo any agreement reached with Iran, or at least roll it back significantly. “On January 20, 2017, if I were
elected president I would pull back from this awful deal on the very first day,” Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told radio host Lars Larson last
week. In
reality, that’s highly unlikely. Experts on the region and nuclear pacts say unraveling any deal
once it goes into force will be fraught with diplomatic, financial and security risks that will make it all but
impossible for a Republican president to just scrap it right off the bat. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush hinted as much
in an op-ed on the conservative web site Townhall.com, though unlike Walker, he did not come out and say he’d rip an agreement on Day One.
“Undoing the damage done by a fundamentally flawed nuclear deal will not be easy,” wrote Bush. But he insisted doing so is “essential for the
security of the United States.” It’s
more likely, however, that moves by Tehran—not Washington, D.C.—will either
propel the nuclear deal forward or put it in jeopardy.
Aff Answers
AFF – thumpers
Domestic Focus
Renewed domestic focus thumps the DA
Carol Lee 7/2/2015 “White House Gears Up for Domestic-Policy Offensive”, Wall Street Journal,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/02/white-house-gears-up-for-domestic-policy-offensive/
While President Barack Obama‘s top foreign-policy initiatives–particularly on Cuba, trade and Iran–have dominated the
headlines lately, the White House is gearing up for a domestic policy push that’s largely been under the radar. The
effort is designed both to burnish Mr. Obama’s domestic-policy legacy and to try to make headway on issues where
progress has lagged. Mr. Obama has already begun to showcase the strategy. The White House announced this week
a proposal to expand overtime pay to about five million more Americans, and on Wednesday Mr. Obama traveled to Tennessee to
highlight his health-care law in the wake of last week’s Supreme Court ruling that upheld federal subsidies to millions of low-income Americans.
In coming weeks, the White House is expected to roll out more executive orders, perhaps on gun safety.
And top White House officials are hoping to capitalize on their successful collaboration with congressional Republicans on
trade to advance a business-tax overhaul and transportation initiatives targeted at shoring up the country’s infrastructure.
Changes to the criminal justice system are also at the top of the president’s domestic wish list. He
telegraphed his renewed domestic focus this week during a news conference with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. “The
list is long,” Mr. Obama said. “What we’re going to do is just keep on hammering away at all the issues that I think
are going to have an impact on the American people. Some of them will be left undone. But we’re going to try to make progress
on every single one of them.” The renewed domestic offensive, coupled with an aggressive front on foreign-policy issues, are a reflection of a
president who is, as former senior White House adviser David Axelrod recently told The Wall Street Journal, “feeling the pressures of time.” The
challenge for Mr. Obama will be in the places where his domestic and foreign policy agendas intersect. The president has limited political
capital in Congress. And he needs lawmakers to back–or at least not amass a veto-proof majority opposition to–a nuclear deal with Iran if one is
finalized in coming days. He’ll also need to generate enough support among Republican and Democratic lawmakers for lifting the embargo on
Cuba, which on Wednesday he again called on Congress to do as he announced finalized plans to open an American embassy in Havana. It’s
unclear if Mr. Obama will also be able to persuade Congress to act on issues such as infrastructure,
business taxes and the criminal justice system. But White House officials have been instructed to make a
strong effort. “We are going to squeeze every last ounce of progress that we can make when I have the privilege–as long as I have the
privilege of holding this office,” Mr. Obama said Tuesday.
Cuban Embargo
Obama has regained political capital and will spend it on pushing for new relations
with Cuba
Dana Milbank July 1, 2015, Washington Post, In his presidential homestretch, Obama regains the
momentum, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-regains-themomentum/2015/07/01/43a6b932-203c-11e5-aeb9-a411a84c9d55_story.html
“This,” President Obama said in the Rose Garden on Wednesday as he
announced the restoration of diplomatic relations
with Cuba, “is what change looks like.” This echo of his 2008 campaign theme was self-congratulatory but deserved, coming at a time of
unexpected hope late in his presidency. In the space of just over a week, Obama’s tired tenure came back to life. He bested
congressional Democrats and got trade legislation on his desk. The Supreme Court upheld the signature achievement of his
presidency — Obamacare — and thereby cemented his legacy. The high court also made same-sex marriage legal across
the land following a tidal change in public opinion that Obama’s own conversion accelerated. Had the court’s
decisions not dominated the nation’s attention, Obama’s eulogy Friday for those slain in a South Carolina church, and his extraordinary
rendition of “Amazing Grace,” would have itself been one of the most powerful moments of his presidency.It is little surprise, then, that this
lame duck’s job approval rating hit a respectable 50 percent this week for the first time in two years in a CNN poll, and his disapproval rating
dropped to 47. The good tidings of the past week have been arguably more luck than achievement for Obama, but he deserves
credit
for his effort to use the momentum of his victories to revive what had been a moribund presidency.
When you earn political capital, as George W. Bush liked to say, you spend it. This is why it was shrewd of the
surging Obama to be in the Rose Garden on Wednesday morning, demanding new action from Congress on Cuba.
“Americans and Cubans alike are ready to move forward; I believe it’s time for Congress to do the same, ”
he said, renewing his call to lift the travel and trade embargo. “. . . Yes, there are those who want to turn back the clock and
double down on a policy of isolation, but it’s long past time for us to realize that this approach doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked for 50 years. . . .
So I’d ask Congress to listen to the Cuban people, listen to the American people, listen to the words of a proud Cuban American,
[former Bush commerce secretary] Carlos Gutierrez, who recently came out against the policy of the past.” Fifteen minutes later, Obama lifted
off from the South Lawn in Marine One on his way to Nashville, where he tried to use the momentum generated by the Supreme Court
Obamacare victory to spread the program to states where Republican governors have resisted. “What I’m hoping is that with the Supreme
Court case now behind us, what we can do is . . . now focus on how we can make it even better,” he said, adding, “My hope is that on a
bipartisan basis, in places like Tennessee but all across the country, we can now focus on . . . what have we learned? What’s working? What’s
not working?” He said that “because of politics, not all states have taken advantage of the options that are out there. Our hope is, is that more
of them do.” He urged people to “think about this in a practical American way instead of a partisan, political way.” This probably won’t happen,
but it’s refreshing to see Obama, too often passive, regaining vigor as he approaches the final 18 months of his presidency. The energy had, at
least for the moment, returned to the White House, where no fewer than six network correspondents were doing live stand-ups before
Obama’s appearance Wednesday morning. There was a spring in the president’s step, if not a swagger, as he emerged from the Oval Office
trailed by Vice President Biden. Republican presidential candidates were nearly unanimous in denouncing
the plan to open
a U.S. embassy in Havana. But Obama, squinting in the sunlight as he read from his teleprompters, welcomed the fight.
“The progress that we mark today is yet another demonstration that we don’t have to be imprisoned by
the past,” he said. Quoting a Cuban American’s view that “you can’t hold the future of Cuba hostage to what happened in the past,” Obama
added, “That’s what this is about: a choice between the future and the past.” Obama turned to go back inside, ignoring the question shouted by
Bloomberg’s Margaret Talev: “How
will you get an ambassador confirmed?” That will indeed be tricky. But
momentum is everything in politics — and for the moment, Obama has it again.
Uq Answers
No Iran Deal
Deal unlikely- no agreement on UN sanctions and no approval from ministers-Iran is
not on board
Reuters 7/4/2015, Despite progress in Iran nuclear talks, dispute over U.N. sanctions persists,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/04/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150704
Iran and world powers made progress on future sanctions relief for Iran in marathon nuclear talks on Saturday, but remained
divided on issues such as lifting United Nations sanctions and the development of advanced centrifuges. Diplomats close
to the negotiations said they had tentative agreement on a mechanism for suspending U.S. and European Union sanctions on Iran. But the six
powers had yet to agree on a United Nations Security Council resolution that would lift U.N. sanctions
and establish a means of re-imposing them in case of Iranian non-compliance with a future agreement. "We still haven't sorted a
Security Council resolution," a diplomat close to the talks told Reuters. "We don't have Iran on board yet." Senior
Iranian and Western diplomats echoed the remarks. Some of the toughest disputes, including the question of
easing U.N. sanctions, were likely to be left for foreign ministers when they arrived in the Austrian capital on Sunday, officials
said. "Even if and when issues get resolved at an experts level, there will remain some open issues that
can only be decided by ministers," a senior U.S. official told reporters.
Deal 50/50
Iran deal is not guaranteed- many contentious issues remain
Fox News 7/5/2015, Kerry: Reaching final Iran nuclear deal 'could go either way,' as deadline nears
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/05/kerry-reaching-final-iran-nuclear-deal-could-go-eitherway-as-deadline-nears/
Secretary of State John Kerry
said Sunday that the U.S. and Iran are closer to reaching a final nuclear deal but
expressed uncertainty about hitting their 48-hour deadline, saying negotiations “could go either way.” Kerry
made his comments during a break in one-on-one talks in Vienna with Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Zarif said Saturday that he
and Kerry’s teams made significant headway by reaching a tentative agreement on some sanctions now being imposed on Iran for its nuclear
program. However, the
deal must be approved by diplomats from the five other world powers involved in the
talks, who are returning to Vienna on Sunday. In addition, major sticking points remain on such issues as
inspections of Iranian nuclear-related facilities. “We have in fact made genuine progress but … we are not
yet where we need to be on several of the most difficult issues," said Kerry, who was in his ninth day of negotiations
in Vienna. "While I completely agree with … Zarif that we have never been closer, at this point, this negotiation could go
either way."
No Congress Approval
Congressional approval is an uphill battle- Israel lobby and security concerns trump
Reuters 7/4/2015, Despite progress in Iran nuclear talks, dispute over U.N. sanctions persists,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/04/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN0PD1DP20150704
Doubts among American Jews about peace with Iran and the
influential role of pro-Israel lobby groups in Congress, are
also points of major concern for the Obama administration. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu drew
applause from US lawmakers when he spoke against a deal with Iran in a controversial appearance before Congress
earlier this year. In connection with Netanyahu's speech, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) sent thousands of its
members to lobby individual senators and representatives against a deal. "If the Iranians do not agree to a regime that provides
verification, inspection, monitoring and snap-back sanctions, then we should walk away in my opinion," Martin Indyk, a senior foreign policy
director at Brookings and a former ambassador to Israel, advised members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently. Speaking to a
meeting of the American Jewish Committee in Washington on June 8, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken sought to reassure his audience
that Obama has done more than any other US president to support Israel's security and won't concede to Iran in the end. "The
United
States continues to believe that no deal is preferable to a bad deal," Blinken went on to say. Winning US
congressional approval is further complicated by a perception that Iran is creating regional instability in
Syria, Iraq, Yemen and elsewhere. Lawmakers are troubled by the idea that reaching a nuclear deal
would amount to American acceptance of Iran's newfound regional influence.
Congressional opposition ensures no sustainable deal can pass
Barbara Plett Usher 6/29/2015, Will Congress scupper US nuclear deal with Iran?, BBC News,
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33286773
As crunch time nears for an Iran nuclear deal, Washington heavyweights are piling on the pressure. Bob
Corker, the Republican Senator who has led the charge for Congressional oversight, has written to the president, warning against the erosion of
red lines. Five
of Barack Obama's top former Iran advisors have signed an open letter expressing concern
that the deal might lack sufficient safeguards to deter Iran from building a nuclear bomb. And the administration has
intensified briefings with lawmakers amid a series of media leaks suggesting concessions in the negotiations. These interventions add
to the challenge of the end game, and raise questions about the sustainability and credibility of
whatever it might produce. Partisan politics Much of the ongoing opposition on Capitol Hill is about support
for Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in effect appealed to Congress to block a deal. And much of it is about
partisan Republican politics targeting the foreign policy of a Democratic president. But Democrats also share some
Republican concerns about the negotiations and whether a viable deal is possible with an old enemy still
deeply distrusted.
Uq O/whelms Link
The uniqueness overwhelms the link- there is no chance the GOP can get enough
votes to block the Iran deal.
BURGESS EVERETT 7/8/15, Congress all but powerless to block Iran deal, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/congress-all-but-powerless-to-block-iran-deal-119821.html
If President Barack Obama announces a nuclear containment deal with Iran this week, an army of critics led by
Republican hawks in Congress will leap into action to kill it. That’s very unlikely to happen. Story Continued Below
The law that Congress passed in May allowing lawmakers to weigh in on a nuclear agreement will do just that — give them a say. But it also
makes it impossible to block an agreement absent a full-on Democratic rebellion against the president.
If opponents could somehow manage to get a resolution expressing their disapproval and blocking the lifting of
congressional sanctions through both houses of Congress — a big if, given the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold —
they’d run straight into Obama’s veto pen. And even some of the fiercest opponents of an Iran pact concede
the president could probably cobble together 34 votes in the Senate to sustain his veto. “Clearly, it’s going to be
challenging,” said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a strident critic of Obama’s foreign policy, was the only senator to vote
against the Iran review bill this spring. He said Tuesday he did so because the measure gives the “illusion of oversight without oversight” and
“acquiesces” to the president by forcing Congress to amasss a veto-proof majority to block a deal — rather than make the administration
accrue 67 votes in support of the deal, as he would have to do with a formal treaty. “It didn’t give Congress much power that’s beyond our
inherent authority,” Cotton said in an interview. “If that act was not law, we could still pass legislation with a veto-proof majority to block the
deal from moving forward.” Indeed, the
terms of the review law have allies of the president feeling confident that
as long as the final deal is not wildly incompatible with the basic parameters announced in April —
economic relief to Iran in return for slowing down its nuclear program — the deal will be safe from Congress.
Link answers
Plan Popular
Both legislators and the American people support surveillance reform, meaning there would
be no political capital spent as a result of the plan
Sledge ‘13 [Matt Sledge, 9/25/13, Huffington Post, “NSA Reform Bill Comes from Bipartisan Group of
Senators”] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/nsa-reform-bill_n_3991245.html
A bipartisan group of senators announced a comprehensive surveillance reform bill on Wednesday, but their
effort may encounter resistance from the powerful Intelligence Committee chairwoman, who steadfastly supports the National Security
Agency. The
legislation "expresses our bipartisan view of what Congress must do to enact real, not cosmetic,
intelligence reform," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Intelligence Committee. "The disclosures over the last
hundred days have caused a sea change in the way the public views the surveillance system." Wyden was joined by fellow committee
member Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). The senators said that
their bill, whose full text was not immediately available, would end bulk collection of Americans' phone
records, close a loophole that allows the NSA to conduct "backdoor searches" of Americans'
communications without a warrant, and create a "constitutional advocate" to argue against the
government before the secretive court that oversees foreign surveillance. The bill would also permit private
companies like Google, which has complained that its hands are tied, to disclose more information about what kind of data they are forced to
give the government. And it would create a right to sue for individuals who are "professionally impacted" by surveillance -- an issue core to a
lawsuit against the government that the Supreme Court swatted down in February for lack of legal standing. All of those proposals are indebted
to the revelations of NSA leaker Edward Snowden. Since June, when Snowden's disclosures started appearing in the world press, the NSA has
weathered a steady drip of damaging stories. Recently it was revealed that the agency has violated privacy rules thousands of times a year and
that it has misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "The significant reforms in this bill are especially important in light of recent
declassified reports that show what Senator Wyden and I have known for years," said Udall, who was privy to the secret reports as a member of
the Intelligence Committee but not allowed to reveal their contents. "The
National Security Agency has been unable to
properly manage existing surveillance programs," he said. "This has led to the abuse of Americans'
privacy and misleading statements made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- and we've only seen
the tip of the iceberg." Mark Jaycox, a policy analyst for the pro-surveillance reform Electronic Frontier Foundation, applauded the bill's
introduction Wednesday. "The
Senators' move is yet another reassuring sign -- which ranges from public opinion to the
Amash amendment -- that Congress will try to fix the NSA spying," he said via email. "Now it's time for the Senators' fellow
members to get behind these reforms and make sure that the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the NSA end." Although Senate Judiciary
Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has already introduced legislation to increase oversight on some of the NSA's programs, the larger,
comprehensive reform bill likely needs to move through the Intelligence Committee. The latter panel is chaired by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.), who has repeatedly expressed her support of the NSA's efforts and, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has shown
little inclination to allow reform bills to advance. "We have a number of fronts on which we're going to operate, and quite frankly fight,
With polls showing a broad
majority of Americans concerned there are not enough checks on the NSA's powers, and with the House
nearly passing an amendment in July meant to curb the bulk collection of phone call data, the Senate
Intelligence Committee is allowing rare public hearings on the NSA's programs. Wyden said the bill's introduction
because this is not going to be easy," Udall acknowledged. Civil libertarians have scored one victory:
was an attempt to set a high bar for debate ahead of the Intelligence Committee's first public hearing since Snowden's leaks. That hearing on
Thursday will feature testimony from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander and Deputy Attorney
General James Cole.
There’s bipartisan momentum for curtailing surveillance
Weisman, 13 (Jonathan Weisman, political writer for NYT, 7-28-2013, "Momentum Builds against
N.S.A. Surveillance", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/us/politics/momentumbuilds-against-nsa-surveillance.html, DA: 5-30-2015)
WASHINGTON — The movement to crack down on government surveillance started with an odd couple from Michigan,
Representatives Justin Amash, a young libertarian Republican known even to his friends as “chief wing nut,” and John Conyers Jr., an elder of
the liberal left in his 25th House term. But what began on the political fringes only a week ago has
built a momentum that even
critics say may be unstoppable, drawing support from Republican and Democratic leaders, attracting
moderates in both parties and pulling in some of the most respected voices on national security in the
House. The rapidly shifting politics were reflected clearly in the House on Wednesday, when a plan to defund the National Security Agency’s
telephone data collection program fell just seven votes short of passage. Now, after initially signaling that they were comfortable with the
scope of the N.S.A.’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet activities, but not their content, revealed last month by Edward J. Snowden,
lawmakers are showing an increasing willingness to use legislation to curb those actions. Representatives Jim
Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, and Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, have begun work on legislation in the
House Judiciary Committee to significantly rein in N.S.A. telephone surveillance. Mr. Sensenbrenner said on Friday that he
would have a bill ready when Congress returned from its August recess that would restrict phone surveillance to only those named as targets of
a federal terrorism investigation, make significant changes to the secret court that oversees such programs and give businesses like Microsoft
and Google permission to reveal their dealings before that court. “There
is a growing sense that things have really gone a-
kilter here,” Ms. Lofgren said. The sudden reconsideration of post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism policy has taken much of Washington by
surprise. As the revelations by Mr. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, were gaining attention in the news media, the White House and
leaders in both parties stood united behind the programs he had unmasked. They were focused mostly on bringing the leaker to justice.
Backers of sweeping surveillance powers now say they recognize that changes are likely, and they are taking steps to make sure they maintain
control over the extent of any revisions. Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee met on Wednesday as the House deliberated to try to
find accommodations to growing public misgivings about the programs, said the committee’s chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat
of California. Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat and longtime critic of the N.S.A. surveillance programs, said he had taken part in serious
meetings to discuss changes. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the panel, said, “We’re talking through it right
now.” He added, “There are a lot of ideas on the table, and it’s pretty obvious that we’ve got some uneasy folks.” Representative Mike Rogers,
a Michigan Republican and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has assured House colleagues that an intelligence policy bill he
plans to draft in mid-September will include new privacy safeguards. Aides familiar with his efforts said the House Intelligence Committee was
focusing on more transparency for the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which oversees data gathering, including possibly
declassifying that court’s orders, and changes to the way the surveillance data is stored. The legislation may order such data to be held by the
telecommunications companies that produce them or by an independent entity, not the government. Lawmakers say their votes to
restrain the N.S.A. reflect a gut-level concern among voters about personal privacy. “I represent a very
reasonable district in suburban Philadelphia, and my constituents are expressing a growing concern on the sweeping
amounts of data that the government is compiling,” said Representative Michael G. Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican
who represents one of the few true swing districts left in the House and who voted on Wednesday to limit N.S.A. surveillance. Votes from the
likes of Mr. Fitzpatrick were not initially anticipated when Republican leaders chided reporters for their interest in legislation that they said
would go nowhere. As the House slowly worked its way on Wednesday toward an evening vote to curb government surveillance, even
proponents of the legislation jokingly predicted that only the “wing nuts” — the libertarians of the right, the most ardent liberals on the left —
would support the measure. Then Mr. Sensenbrenner, a Republican veteran and one of the primary authors of the post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act,
stepped to a microphone on the House floor. Never, he said, did he intend to allow the wholesale vacuuming up of domestic phone records,
nor did his legislation envision that data dragnets would go beyond specific targets of terrorism investigations. “The time has come to stop it,
and the way we stop it is to approve this amendment,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said. He had not intended to speak, and when he did, he did not say
much, just seven brief sentences. “I was able to say what needed to be said in a minute,” he said Friday. Lawmakers from both parties said the
brief speech was a pivotal moment. When the tally was final, the effort to end the N.S.A.’s programs had fallen short, 205 to 217. Supporters
included Republican leaders like Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington and Democratic leaders like Representative James E.
Clyburn of South Carolina. Republican moderates like Mr. Fitzpatrick and Blue Dog Democrats like Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon
joined with respected voices on national security matters like Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren. Besides Ms. McMorris Rodgers,
Representative Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, another member of the Republican leadership, voted yes. On the Democratic side, the chairman of the
House Democratic Caucus, Representative Xavier Becerra of California, and his vice chairman, Representative Joseph Crowley of New York,
broke with the top two Democrats, Representatives Nancy Pelosi of California and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who pressed hard for no votes.
On Friday, Ms. Pelosi, the House minority leader and a veteran of the Intelligence Committee, and Mr. Hoyer
dashed off a letter
to the president warning that even those Democrats who had stayed with him on the issue on Wednesday would
be seeking changes. That letter included the signature of Mr. Conyers, who is rallying an increasingly unified
Democratic caucus to his side, as well as 61 House Democrats who voted no on Wednesday but are now publicly signaling their
discontent. “Although some of us voted for and others against the amendment, we all agree that there are lingering questions and concerns
about the current” data collection program, the letter stated. Representative Reid Ribble of Wisconsin, a Republican who voted for the curbs
and predicted that changes to the N.S.A. surveillance programs were now unstoppable, said: “This was in many respects a vote intended to
send a message. The vote was just too strong.” Ms. Lofgren said the White House and Democratic and Republican leaders had not come to grips
with what she called “a grave sense of betrayal” that greeted Mr. Snowden’s revelations. Since the Bush administration, lawmakers had been
repeatedly assured that such indiscriminate collection of data did not exist, and that when targeting was unspecific, it was aimed at people
abroad. The movement against the N.S.A. began with the fringes of each party. Mr. Amash of Michigan began pressing for an amendment on
the annual military spending bill aimed at the N.S.A. Leaders of the Intelligence Committee argued strenuously that such an amendment was
not relevant to military spending and should be ruled out of order. But Mr. Amash, an acolyte of Ron Paul, a libertarian former congressman,
persisted and rallied support. Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ms. Lofgren said they were willing to work with the House and Senate intelligence panels
to overhaul the surveillance programs, but indicated that they did not believe those panels were ready to go far enough. “I would just hope the
Intelligence Committees will not stick their heads in the sand on this,” Mr. Sensenbrenner said.
Winners Win/At: PC key
Political capital doesn’t exist and isn’t key to their DA- more likely winners win
Michael Hirsch 2/7/2013 chief correspondent for National Journal. He also contributes to 2012 Decoded. Hirsh
previously served as the senior editor and national economics correspondent for Newsweek, based in its Washington bureau.
He was also Newsweek’s Washington web editor and authored a weekly column for Newsweek.com, “The World from
Washington.” Earlier on, he was Newsweek’s foreign editor, guiding its award-winning coverage of the September 11 attacks
and the war on terror. He has done on-the-ground reporting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the world, and
served as the Tokyo-based Asia Bureau Chief for Institutional Investor from 1992 to 1994.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In
pundits will do what they always do
talk about
how
much political capital Obama possesses to push his program through this talk will have no bearing on
what actually happens
Three months ago
if someone had talked about
capital to oversee
both immigration and gun-control
this person would have been called crazy
In his first term
Obama
didn’t dare to even bring up gun control
And
yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obama’s
political capital
chances are fair that both will now happen What changed In the case of gun control
Newtown
response, the
this time of year: They will
“
how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of
”
. Most of
over the next four years. Consider this:
having enough political
, just before the November election,
passage of
reform
seriously
Obama
legislation at the beginning of his second term—even after winning the election by 4 percentage
points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally)—
and stripped of his pundit’s license. (It doesn’t exist, but it ought to.)
, in a starkly
polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years.
, a Democratic “third rail” that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the president’s health care law.
personal prestige or popularity—variously put in terms of a “mandate” or “
.
20 first-graders who were slaughtered in
?
”—
, of course, it wasn’t the election. It was the horror of the
, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed
after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after t he massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was
shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant testimony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: “Be bold.” As a result, momentum has appeared
to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. It’s impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun
Meanwhile
immigration
turnaround has very little to do with Obama’s personal influence
It has almost entirely to do
with
the
Hispanic vote
movement on immigration has come out of the
Republican Party’s introspection
laws. But one thing is clear: The political tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time. Whole new possibilities exist now that didn’t a few weeks ago.
of compromise on
, the Republican members of the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit
reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would “self-deport.” But this
—his political mandate, as it were.
just two numbers: 71 and 27. That’s 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney,
breakdown of the
in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on immigration reform on Jan. 29
at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the
recent
mainly
, and the realization by its more thoughtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic
death in a country where the 2010 census showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. It’s got nothing to do with Obama’s political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for
“mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s
mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But
the idea of political capita
that presidents and pundits often get it wrong.
capital
we know more than we really do about ever-elusive
political power
suddenly change everything
the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.” The real problem is that
l—or mandates, or momentum—
is so poorly defined
“Presidents usually over-estimate it,” says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “The best kind of political capital—some sense of
an electoral mandate to do something—is very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980.” For that reason, political
the
conveys that
unforeseen events can
is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It
concept of
, and it discounts the way
the idea
. Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real investment capital—that a particular leader can bank his gains, and
the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and elect oral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in
the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make
him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth
depending on Obama’s handling of
any
issue, even in a polarized time he could still deliver on his second-term goals depending on
the breaks
political capital is, at best, an empty concept that almost nothing in the academic
literature successfully quantifies or even defines it.
Winning on one issue often changes the calculation
for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital
about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice,
particular
,
a lot of
,
his skill and
. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass
legislation and run successful presidencies say that
, and
“It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard
Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests.
. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he
Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change
positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”¶
¶
wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors”
ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ
Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because he’s
aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&M’s Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnson’s landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in
addition to Goldwater’s ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnson’s masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The
Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Don’t focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, because it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers’ support
for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. “One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn’t to expend it on this,” Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was
called in those days.) Johnson replied, “Well, what the hell’s the presidency for?” Johnson didn’t worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but
also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. “Momentum is not a mysterious mistress,” LBJ said. “It is a controllable fact of political life.” Johnson had the skill an d wherewithal
to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.) And then there are the presidents who get the politics, and the issues, wrong. It was the last president before Obama who was just starting a
second term, George W. Bush, who really revived the claim of political capital, which he was very fond of wielding. Then Bush promptly demonstrated that he didn’t fully understand the concept either. At his first news conference after his 2004 victory, a confident-sounding Bush
declared, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. That’s my style.” The 43rd president threw all of his political capital at an overridi ng passion: the partial privatization of Social Security. He mounted a full-bore public-relations campaign that
included town-hall meetings across the country. Bush failed utterly, of course. But the problem was not that he didn’t have enough political capital. Yes, he may have overestimated his standing. Bush’s margin over John Kerry was thin—helped along by a bumbling Kerry campaign that
was almost the mirror image of Romney’s gaffe-filled failure this time—but that was not the real mistake. The problem was that whatever credibility or stature Bush thought he had earned as a newly reelected president did nothing to make Social Security privatization a better idea in
most people’s eyes. Voters didn’t trust the plan, and four years later, at the end of Bush’s term, the stock-market collapse bore out the public’s skepticism. Privatization just didn’t have any momentum behind it, no matter who was pushing it or how much capital Bush spent to sell it. The
mistake that Bush made with Social Security, says John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and a well-followed political blogger, “was that just because he won an election, he thought he had a green light. But there was no sense of any kind
of public urgency on Social Security reform. It’s like he went into the garage where various Republican policy ideas were hanging up and picked one. I don’t think Obama’s going to make that mistake.… Bush decided he wanted to push a rock up a hill. He didn’t understand how steep the
Obama may get his way
not because of
his reelection,
but because Republicans are beginning to doubt whether taking a hard line on fiscal
policy is a good idea
¶
¶
hill was. I think Obama has more momentum on his side because of the Republican Party’s concerns about the Latino vote and the shooting at Newtown.”
also
on the debt ceiling,
Sides says, “
,” as the party suffers in the polls.
THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER
Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this,
too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didn’t
realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010—haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout,
aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pockets—government-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the
debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the country’s mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distract ed the government’s attention from other
issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didn’t really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financialreform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said. Weighing the imponderables of momentum, the often-mystical calculations about when the historic moment is ripe for an issue, will never be a science. It is mainly intuition, and its
best practitioners have a long history in American politics. This is a tale told well in Steven Spielberg’s hit movie Lincoln. Daniel Day-Lewis’s Abraham Lincoln attempts a lot of behind-the-scenes vote-buying to win passage of the 13th Amendment, banning slavery, along with eloquent
attempts to move people’s hearts and minds. He appears to be using the political capital of his reelection and the turning of the tide in the Civil War. But it’s clear that a surge of conscience, a sense of the changing times, has as much to do with the final vote as all the backroom horsetrading. “The reason I think the idea of political capital is kind of distorting is that it implies you have chits you can give out to people. It really oversimplifies why you elect politicians, or why they can do what Lincoln did,” says Tommy Bruce, a former political consultant in Washington.
Consider, as another example, the storied political career of President Franklin Roosevelt. Because the mood was ripe for dramatic change in the depths of the Great Depression, FDR was able to push an astonishing array of New Deal programs through a largely compliant Congress,
assuming what some described as near-dictatorial powers. But in his second term, full of confidence because of a landslide victory in 1936 that brought in unprece dented Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Roosevelt overreached with his infamous Court-packing proposal. All
of a sudden, the political capital that experts thought was limitless disappeared. FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court by putting in his judicial allies abruptly created an unanticipated wall of opposition from newly reunited Republicans and conservative Southern Democrats. FDR thus
inadvertently handed back to Congress, especially to the Senate, the power and influence he had seized in his first term. Sure, Roosevelt had loads of popularity and momentum in 1937. He seemed to have a bank vault full of political capital. But, once again, a president simply chose to
take on the wrong issue at the wrong time; this time, instead of most of the political interests in the country aligning his way, they opposed him. Roosevelt didn’t fully recover until World War II, despite two more election victories. In terms of Obama’s second-term agenda, what all these
if he picks issues
there is no reason to think he can’t win far more victories than
careful
calculators of political capital believe is possible
If he can get some early wins
that
will create momentum, and one win may well lead to others. “Winning wins
shifting tides of momentum and political calculation mean is this: Anything goes. Obama has no more elections to win, and he needs to worry only about the support he will have in the House and Senate after 2014. But
mood will support—such as, perhaps, immigration reform and gun control—
that the country’s
any of the
now
emerging, one who has his agenda clearly in mind and will ride the mood of the country more adroitly.
, including battles over tax reform and deficit reduction. Amid today’s atmosphere of Republican self-doubt, a new, more mature Obama seems to be
—as he already has, apparently, on the fiscal cliff and the upper-income tax increase—
.” Obama himself learned some hard lessons over the past four years about the
falsity of the political-capital concept. Despite his decisive victory over John McCain in 2008, he fumbled the selling of his $787 billion stimulus plan by portraying himself naively as a “post-partisan” president who somehow had been given the electoral mandate to be all things to all
people. So Obama tried to sell his stimulus as a long-term restructuring plan that would “lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth.” The president thus fed GOP suspicions that he was just another big-government liberal. Had he understood better that the country was digging
in against yet more government intervention and had sold the stimulus as what it mainly was—a giant shot of adrenalin to an economy with a stopped heart, a pure emergency measure—he might well have escaped the worst of the backlash. But by laying on ambitious programs, and
following up quickly with his health care plan, he only sealed his reputation on the right as a closet socialist. After that, Obama’s public posturing provoked automatic opposition from the GOP, no matter what he said. If the president put his personal imprimatur on any plan—from deficit
reduction, to health care, to immigration reform—Republicans were virtually guaranteed to come out against it. But this year, when he sought to exploit the chastened GOP’s newfound willingness to compromise on immigration, his approach was different. He seemed to understand that
the Republicans needed to reclaim immigration reform as their own issue, and he was willing to let them have some credit. When he mounted his bully pulpit in Nevada, he delivered another new message as well: You Republicans don’t have to listen to what I say anymore. And don’t
worry about who’s got the political capital. Just take a hard look at where I’m saying this: in a state you were supposed to have won but lost because of the rising Hispanic vote. Obama was cleverly pointing the GOP toward conclusions that he knows it is already reaching on its own: If
you, the Republicans, want to have any kind of a future in a vastly changed electoral map, you have no choice but to move. It’s your choice.
At: PC Key
Studies prove political capital makes no difference
Rockman 9, Purdue University Political Science professor, (Bert A., October 2009, Presidential Studies
Quarterly, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?”, volume
39, issue 4, Academic OneFile. accessed 7-15-10)
Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g.,
1980, 1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990) have
tested Neustadt's ideas about skill and prestige
translating into leverage with other actors. In this, Neustadt's ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We
know from the work of empirical scientists that public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance
a president's agenda and that the effects of approval are most keenly felt--where they are at all--among
a president's support base. We know now, too, that a president's purported skills at schmoozing,
twisting arms, and congressional lobbying add virtually nothing to getting what he (or she) wants from
Congress. That was a lot more than we knew prior to the publication of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to work with, and a
newer (and now older) generation of political scientists, reared on Neustadt but armed with the tools of scientific inquiry, could put some of his
propositions to an empirical test. That
the empirical tests demonstrate that several of these propositions are
wrong comes with the territory. That is how science progresses. But the reality is that there was almost nothing of a propositional
nature prior to Neustadt.
At: Escalation
Mutual interest checks any escalation—threats are transparent bluffs
Fettweis 7 – Asst Prof Poli Sci – Tulane, Asst Prof National Security Affairs – US Naval War College
(Christopher, “On the Consequences of Failure in Iraq,” Survival, Vol. 49, Iss. 4, December, p. 83 – 98)
Without the US presence, a second argument goes, nothing would prevent Sunni-Shia violence from sweeping into every country where the religious
divide exists. A
Sunni bloc with centres in Riyadh and Cairo might face a Shia bloc headquartered in Tehran, both of which would face
enormous pressure from their own people to fight proxy wars across the region. In addition to intra-Muslim civil war,
cross-border warfare could not be ruled out. Jordan might be the first to send troops into Iraq to secure its own border; once
the dam breaks, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia might follow suit. The Middle East has no shortage of rivalries, any of which
might descend into direct conflict after a destabilising US withdrawal. In the worst case, Iran might emerge as the regional hegemon, able to bully and
blackmail its neighbours with its new nuclear arsenal. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would soon demand suitable deterrents of their own, and a
nuclear
arms race would envelop the region. Once again, however, none of these outcomes is particularly likely.
Wider war No matter what the outcome in Iraq, the region is not likely to devolve into chaos. Although it might seem
counter-intuitive, by most traditional measures the Middle East is very stable. Continuous,
uninterrupted governance is the norm, not the exception; most Middle East regimes have been in
power for decades. Its monarchies, from Morocco to Jordan to every Gulf state, have generally been in power
since these countries gained independence. In Egypt Hosni Mubarak has ruled for almost three decades, and Muammar
Gadhafi in Libya for almost four. The region's autocrats have been more likely to die quiet, natural deaths than
meet the hangman or post-coup firing squads. Saddam's rather unpredictable regime, which attacked its neighbours
twice, was one of the few exceptions to this pattern of stability, and he met an end unusual for the modern Middle East.
Its regimes have survived potentially destabilising shocks before, and they would be likely to do so
again.¶ The region actually experiences very little cross-border warfare, and even less since the end of the Cold
War. Saddam again provided an exception, as did the Israelis, with their adventures in Lebanon. Israel fought four wars with
neighbouring states in the first 25 years of its existence, but none in the 34 years since. Vicious civil wars that once
engulfed Lebanon and Algeria have gone quiet, and its ethnic conflicts do not make the region particularly unique.¶
The biggest risk of an American withdrawal is intensified civil war in Iraq rather than regional conflagration. Iraq's neighbours
will likely not prove eager to fight each other to determine who gets to be the next country to spend itself into
penury propping up an unpopular puppet regime next door. As much as the Saudis and Iranians may threaten to
intervene on behalf of their co-religionists, they have shown no eagerness to replace the counterinsurgency role that American troops play today. If the United States, with its remarkable military and unlimited resources,
could not bring about its desired solutions in Iraq, why would any other country think it could do so?17¶ Common interest, not
the presence of the US military, provides the ultimate foundation for stability. All ruling regimes in the
Middle East share a common (and understandable) fear of instability. It is the interest of every actor - the
Iraqis, their neighbours and the rest of the world - to see a stable, functioning government emerge in Iraq. If the United
States were to withdraw, increased regional cooperation to address that common interest is far more likely than
outright warfare
Even if Iran gets the bomb, it won’t escalate to an arms race
Daniel Larison 14, senior editor at the American Conservative, PhD in History from the Univ of Chicago,
citing Johan Bergenas, deputy director of the Managing Across Boundaries initiative at the Stimson
Center, May 22 2014, “Iran and the “Nuclear Domino” Myth,”
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/iran-and-the-nuclear-domino-myth/
Matthew Kroenig continues his never-ending series of articles promoting war with Iran. I’m not all that interested in his argument about Obama, but I wanted to respond to some assertions that he makes about what would happen
Kroenig writes:¶ Nuclear weapons in Iran would spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Tehran
would probably export do-it-yourself atomic bomb kits to other countries around the world. And the global nonproliferation regime would collapse as it became clear that
the international community lacked the resolve to stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. ¶ All of these claims are wrong. Johan Bergenas specifically addressed two of these
after Iran acquired nuclear weapons.
claims in a 2010 article for Foreign Affairs. He rejected the idea that the nonproliferation regime would collapse because of a nuclear-armed Iran. On the NPT itself, he said:¶ Its more than 180 committed parties are unlikely to
allow Iran’s nuclear program to demolish an institution that is — and has been for four decades — the foundation of nonproliferation efforts.¶ As for the fear of a “nuclear domino effect,” Bergenas cites past experience with new
there’s one problem with this “nuclear domino” scenario: the historical
record does not support it. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, many have feared rapid and widespread nuclear proliferation; 65 years later, only
nine countries have developed nuclear weapons.¶ Notably, Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons has not prompted any of
its neighbors to do likewise, nor has North Korea’s nuclear tests led to further proliferation in East Asia. If a state is determined to build nuclear weapons, the
nonproliferation regime cannot prevent this from happening, but the strength of that regime is that is gives the vast majority of states incentives
not to pursue such weapons.¶ He continues: ¶ Predictions of catastrophic consequences resulting from a nuclear
Iran are not only wrong but counterproductive. The assertion that the widespread proliferation is unavoidable could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The myth of a nuclear domino effect creates an excuse for
nuclear-weapons states to show this idea to be another myth:¶ But
other Middle Eastern countries — expecting that their neighbors will be nuclear
At: Deal Solves Relations
Deal cant solve relations – Tehran’s anti-Israeli policy makes it impossible to
cooperate
Wilner, Washington bureau chief for JP, 11-9 (Michael, “Obama casts distance from Iran and doubt on a
nuclear deal”, The Jeruslium Post, Nov 9, 2014, http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Obama-castsdistance-from-Iran-and-doubt-on-a-nuclear-deal-381263
WASHINGTON -- US President Barack Obama
cast doubt on whether negotiators in Vienna will succeed in clinching
a comprehensive agreement with Iran over its nuclear program in a television interview aired on
Sunday. Praising Iran's performance under the eight-month old interim agreement, the Joint Plan of Action, which froze the crisis between
Iran and world powers, Obama said the US seeks a "verifiable," lock-tight" deal that makes sure "they don't
get a nuclear weapon." "The question now is: Are we going to be able to close this final gap so that they can re-enter the international
community, sanctions can be slowly reduced, and we have verifiable, lock-tight assurances that they can't develop a nuclear weapon," Obama
said. US Secretary of State John Kerry met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif in Muscat, Oman for those negotiations
on Sunday, working toward a deadline terminating talks on November 24. "There's still a big gap," he said.
"We may not be able to get there." Speaking to Bob Schieffer of CBS News, the president also put distance
between himself and Iran's leadership, days after a report alleged he sent a letter to Iranian Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. "Iran has influence over Shia, both in Syria and in Iraq," he said, acknowledging
shared interest in the defeat of Islamic State in both countries. He declined to comment on the existence of a letter to the Ayatollah, but
insisted the US would not cooperate militarily with Iran over the extremist threat. "We
are not connecting in any way" the
nuclear negotiations with discussions over Islamic State, he continued. Despite diplomatic efforts on two fronts—
breaking historic silence between the two capitals— a slew of policies out of Tehran prevent the US
and Iran from becoming "true allies," including Iran's "anti-Israeli threats and behavior," the president said.
Obama spoke with Schieffer in the Oval Office marking the sixtieth anniversary of "Face the Nation."